[64] See Phil.  Zoologique, vol. i. p. 222, et seq.

XIII.

CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.”

     1.  UEBER DIE DARWIN’SCHE SCHOePFUNGSTHEORIE; EIN VORTAG, VON A.
     KOeLLIKER.  Leipzig, 1864.

     2.  EXAMINATION DU LIVRE DE M. DARWIN SUR L’ORIGINE DES ESPECES. 
     PAR P. FLOURENS.  Paris, 1864.

In the course of the present year [1864] several foreign commentaries upon Mr. Darwin’s great work have made their appearance.  Those who have perused that remarkable chapter of the “Antiquity of Man,” in which Sir Charles Lyell draws a parallel between the development of species and that of languages, will be glad to hear that one of the most eminent philologers of Germany, Professor Schleicher, has, independently, published a most instructive and philosophical pamphlet (an excellent notice of which is to be found in the Reader, for February 27th of this year) supporting similar views with all the weight of his special knowledge and established authority as a linguist.  Professor Haeckel, to whom Schleicher addresses himself, previously took occasion, in his splendid monograph on the Radiolaria,[65] to express his high appreciation of, and general concordance with, Mr. Darwin’s views.

But the most elaborate criticisms of the “Origin of Species” which have appeared are two works of very widely different merit, the one by Professor Koelliker, the well-known anatomist and histologist of Wuerzburg; the other by M. Flourens, Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences.

Professor Koelliker’s critical essay “Upon the Darwinian Theory” is, like all that proceeds from the pen of that thoughtful and accomplished writer, worthy of the most careful consideration.  It comprises a brief but clear sketch of Darwin’s views, followed by an enumeration of the leading difficulties in the way of their acceptance; difficulties which would appear to be insurmountable to Professor Koelliker, inasmuch as he proposes to replace Mr. Darwin’s Theory by one which he terms the “Theory of Heterogeneous Generation.”  We shall proceed to consider first the destructive, and secondly, the constructive portion of the essay.

We regret to find ourselves compelled to dissent very widely from many of Professor Koelliker’s remarks; and from none more thoroughly than from those in which he seeks to define what we may term the philosophical position of Darwinism.

“Darwin,” says Professor Koelliker, “is, in the fullest sense of the Word, a Teleologist.  He says quite distinctly (First Edition, pp. 199, 200) that every particular in the structure of an animal has been created for its benefit, and he regards the whole series of animal forms only from this point of view.”

And again: 

     “7.  The teleological general conception adopted by Darwin is a
     mistaken one.